A brilliant and original thinker nearly suffocated by ageing self-sufficient professors who get distracted by details and fail to see he's on their side and represents the most coherent approach to win this fight. Thanks for inviting him though.
@@nw8985 Agreed, getting interrupted with another question when already answering a question and not even having been able to state his thesis is rather counter-productive.
Nathan Cofnas presented his theory of Wokeism to the Classical Liberalism Initiative at Stanford University and received a rough ride from the audience, with many hostile questions. Cofnas’ theory holds that Wokeism follows from Western moral principles (all individuals have an equal right to flourish) plus the “equality thesis” (the scientifically false but near-universally-imposed axiom that there are no genetic differences in ability or preferences across race or gender groups). If we blindly accept the equality thesis plus the moral principle of equal rights, then “wokeism,” which is a near-hysterical witch-hunt to find the sources of remaining group disparities, makes logical sense. That is the Cofnas theory in a nutshell. Cofnas could not even convince the Classical Liberals of Stanford, an extremely talented group of hard-headed intellectuals, to accept the falsity of the equality thesis. Their harsh reaction to his talk shows that social scientists still have a difficult and important job to do. Social scientists need to explain to the intellectual elite that the equality thesis is no longer scientifically tenable - it has been empirically rejected beyond a reasonable doubt. Even brilliant Stanford students and faculty who identify as classical liberals still cling to the mistaken belief that groups disparities arise from environmental causes.
HAHAHAHAHHAHA 🫵 that is the most pathetic pseudo intellectual rant I’ve ever seen. Please get of your high horse and question yourself because everything you just wrote is nonsense. Please develop some capacity to think critically you bot
I don't think that's what Nathan said, and that's not what the woke elite believe. He said "morally equivalent", I believe. I believe the woke assumption (underlying one of their arguments for affirmative action, say), is that black people have lower IQs because of past and present discrimination (that this happens is basically indisputable), and that whatever INHERENT intelligence differences that may be associated with skin color (a strange concept, but possible) are small compared to the differences we see in outcome (and there's some evidence for this), and therefore the differences are environmental. Negative environmental factors is basically another phrase meaning "less opportunity". So, they say, go in and give them more opportunity. Also, nothing is ever "scientifically proven" in science, technically. And when you're talking social science, "technically" becomes "not even close".
Anyone that has a difficult time understanding that different groups of people have variations or even that sexual dimorphism is real don't deserve to be called 'elite'.
I feel like everyone agrees on the main ideas, but disagreement seems to be focused on whether leftists are more intellectual, which isn't a necessary premise for his conclusion. I guess it's just there to support his suggestion for a resolution that the change needs to start with the intelligentsia. Overall though, I would expect faculty members at a major university to have better etiquette than interjecting so much that the whole line of argument becomes difficult to follow. They even interrupted other audience members' questions. I mean, come on...
Infuriating that rather than letting him speak, the audience interject meaning the coherence of the argument is lost. So called clever ppl acting really stupid.
Ignoring laws for a minute, I don't see a problem with exerting public, legal pressure to promote your morality. What is the problem with calling for JK Rowling to be dropped by her publisher? What is the problem with boycotts? What, actually, is the problem with 'canceling'? (If there is a problem, it lies with companies firing people because they care nothing for their employees, and will do any expedient thing for profits, because that's the economy we chose). Our legal system is not unprepared. It has considered the matter for centuries and has clearly decided that publicly shaming others is a right to be protected. Because social morality has always worked this way (the only difference now it that technology gives people the power to pile on). You think people weren't 'canceled' in the past? There was never a time when people weren't being 'cancelled'. But many older folks are just blind to the way it worked in past decades (when the penalties were actually often much more severe for doing or saying the "wrong things", btw). Basically, if you agree with the morality being enforced, you probably don't see it as social enforcement. You think "of course people are doing that, it's just the right thing to do". Which is how woke people feel too. The struggle in the public square between wokism and reaction is scary, but it's the "healthy" way democracy is designed for (even though basically amounts to a daily torrent of complaining). This is how we determine our social morality. Oh, and if you're one of those "conservatives" who say they believe society doesn't exist or that we can get rid of social morality altogether and just "be free" (if any of you actually believe that, which I doubt): I don't know... just put yourself in others' shoes more and feel the power imbalances. Either we act on the basis of trust in some generally-agreed upon social morality, or we act on the basis of pure power, which is always ultimately the threat of violence.
The problem is that this kind of "social pressure" has become amplified in magnitude by the internet - to the point where saying the wrong thing is like creating sparks in a room full of fireworks and spilled petrol. Mob rule - and hair trigger mob rule, to boot. The fact that it doesn't physically tear you limb from limb - but rather removes the ability to earn a living from you, or your ability to pay for things electronically - serves only to disguise its viciousness. It's a far cry from the days when social pressure meant "having a word about one of the chaps who's been acting boorishly with the other chaps"
The biggest question I have for cofnas is even if i take his answer to wokeism, why would it necessarily disempower its oppobents. As you see with some people who take the christian/altruist morality seriously but also empirically believe in hereditarianism(even if not fully applied to race such as Gregory Clark), they are still far from classical liberals and push for more statism/redistribution(including a few socialists).As long as you have the morality based on need instead of merit(which in many cases is argued for by environmental/genetic determinism), the push for wokeism cannot be rejected, it would just be adapted if you succeeded.
With reference to the empirical argument I have my personal qualms but I would prefer to respond in a longer format. Basically there's a big difference between just being able to grasp concepts or abstractions(intelligence), which agree about heritability etc. and actually learning or the acquisition of knowledge(which requires using your free will, most fundamentally the choice to think or not to think). Ultimately when it comes to the differences between countries it generally reflects the degree of political/economic freedom.Which is generally a result of the implicit/explicit philosophy of a country, and is not necessary related to intelligence. In fact it can just result in a more compelling rationalisation for bad ideas, for example naxi Germany, which was caused by the continental philosophers and their rejection of reason(both the philosophers and naxi leaders had high IQs but used it for evil). For a detailed account you can read the cause of Hitler's Germany.
Very interesting talk. thank you for posting. Why does he call Christian morality "WEIRD". (I'm not saying it's not, he just didn't explain.) He also defines the "race taboo" to be hypersensitivity. I don't see how that leads to any actions. Seems rather more likely to lead to inaction (I understand this is Kaufmann's thesis, but I don't think it was explained well enough)
Who were the discussants? Nathan Cofnas make some excellent points. If wokism were primarily about black/white disparities, it would be a simpler issue. Glenn Loury and others have made the obvious point that the situation of slave-descendent black Americans is unique and exceptional. Woke is about a intersecting coalitions of the oppressed, competing victimhoods, etc. My point may be semantic but I don't see the intellectual coherence in woke. I strong recommend the book by the forensic scholar Norm Finkelstein, "I'll Burn that Bridge When I get to It - Reflections on Identity Politics, Cancel Culture and Academic Freedom". (2023) Finally, I am not sure what Nathan meant about 'examining sociological issues from a scientific perspective'. I can guess. Sociology is pure BS. Even if conservatives take over, there is no need for this discipline. Quantitative and investigative journalists, philosophers, economists, historians, social workers, etc can cover these topics much better.
Is it normal in seminars for the audience to interrupt the lecturer at will without even raising their hand and waiting to be given permission to speak or saving their questions and objections to the end ? what an environment. to have to try and hold oonto the structure of your presentation while you're being badgered to jump around.
They yelled over him like 20 billion times and asked ten questions in succession for like 15 straight minutes. His argument is that the Congo can never become like South Korea under the right conditions, but under the right conditions North Korea could become like South Korea.
First problem. Presenter fails to define "wokism" or "wokeism", despite having a slide titled "What is wokism?" I would also suggest using the spelling "wokeism", in order to distinguish the concept from the belief in the superiority of cuisine cooked in woks.
@@rrrrrrktjtj Yes, I remember hearing that. That's not a definition. It's an assertion that one thesis ("wokeism") follows from another ("the equality thesis").
@@BlergleslinkVettermoo Wokism is not a thesis, nor did he claim it to be. Its a spiritual belief. It's like "accepting jesus as your lord and saviour is what follows when you take the christian thesis seriously." You are simply trying to paralyze the argument by quibbling over definitions, not a good faith critique imo.
@@rrrrrrktjtj I understand that my approach might come across as fussy, but in areas like political science and philosophy, lots of polysyllabic technical jargon gets thrown around, and the participants often attach different meanings to these words, resulting in confusion. A good way of being clear and avoiding misunderstanding is to define your terms. For example, you say that wokeism is a spiritual belief. Well, then, please state that belief. Is it a belief distinct from the equality thesis? Why didn't the presenter mention this? Is wokeism just a rebranding of the equality thesis? Or is it a set of attitudes and practices that result from taking the equality thesis "seriously"? All of these very legitimate questions could have been answered if the presenter had defined his terms properly in the slide titled "What is wokism?".
A brilliant and original thinker nearly suffocated by ageing self-sufficient professors who get distracted by details and fail to see he's on their side and represents the most coherent approach to win this fight. Thanks for inviting him though.
Seeing a conference like this from a big university is refreshing...
Kudos for letting him speak, but really wish the audience let him get substantially through his argument before nitpicking everything.
Yeah the interruptions are ridiculous
Strongly disagree - he spoke more than enough
@@nw8985 Agreed, getting interrupted with another question when already answering a question and not even having been able to state his thesis is rather counter-productive.
seems like a normal academic talk
Nathan Cofnas presented his theory of Wokeism to the Classical Liberalism Initiative at Stanford University and received a rough ride from the audience, with many hostile questions.
Cofnas’ theory holds that Wokeism follows from Western moral principles (all individuals have an equal right to flourish) plus the “equality thesis” (the scientifically false but near-universally-imposed axiom that there are no genetic differences in ability or preferences across race or gender groups). If we blindly accept the equality thesis plus the moral principle of equal rights, then “wokeism,” which is a near-hysterical witch-hunt to find the sources of remaining group disparities, makes logical sense. That is the Cofnas theory in a nutshell.
Cofnas could not even convince the Classical Liberals of Stanford, an extremely talented group of hard-headed intellectuals, to accept the falsity of the equality thesis. Their harsh reaction to his talk shows that social scientists still have a difficult and important job to do. Social scientists need to explain to the intellectual elite that the equality thesis is no longer scientifically tenable - it has been empirically rejected beyond a reasonable doubt. Even brilliant Stanford students and faculty who identify as classical liberals still cling to the mistaken belief that groups disparities arise from environmental causes.
HAHAHAHAHHAHA 🫵 that is the most pathetic pseudo intellectual rant I’ve ever seen. Please get of your high horse and question yourself because everything you just wrote is nonsense. Please develop some capacity to think critically you bot
I don't think that's what Nathan said, and that's not what the woke elite believe. He said "morally equivalent", I believe.
I believe the woke assumption (underlying one of their arguments for affirmative action, say), is that black people have lower IQs because of past and present discrimination (that this happens is basically indisputable), and that whatever INHERENT intelligence differences that may be associated with skin color (a strange concept, but possible) are small compared to the differences we see in outcome (and there's some evidence for this), and therefore the differences are environmental. Negative environmental factors is basically another phrase meaning "less opportunity". So, they say, go in and give them more opportunity.
Also, nothing is ever "scientifically proven" in science, technically. And when you're talking social science, "technically" becomes "not even close".
Anyone that has a difficult time understanding that different groups of people have variations or even that sexual dimorphism is real don't deserve to be called 'elite'.
I feel like everyone agrees on the main ideas, but disagreement seems to be focused on whether leftists are more intellectual, which isn't a necessary premise for his conclusion. I guess it's just there to support his suggestion for a resolution that the change needs to start with the intelligentsia.
Overall though, I would expect faculty members at a major university to have better etiquette than interjecting so much that the whole line of argument becomes difficult to follow. They even interrupted other audience members' questions. I mean, come on...
Infuriating that rather than letting him speak, the audience interject meaning the coherence of the argument is lost. So called clever ppl acting really stupid.
North Korea has a freaking Space program...I am disappointed that Nathan let that equivication between them and the Congo slide.
Ignoring laws for a minute, I don't see a problem with exerting public, legal pressure to promote your morality. What is the problem with calling for JK Rowling to be dropped by her publisher? What is the problem with boycotts? What, actually, is the problem with 'canceling'? (If there is a problem, it lies with companies firing people because they care nothing for their employees, and will do any expedient thing for profits, because that's the economy we chose). Our legal system is not unprepared. It has considered the matter for centuries and has clearly decided that publicly shaming others is a right to be protected.
Because social morality has always worked this way (the only difference now it that technology gives people the power to pile on). You think people weren't 'canceled' in the past? There was never a time when people weren't being 'cancelled'. But many older folks are just blind to the way it worked in past decades (when the penalties were actually often much more severe for doing or saying the "wrong things", btw). Basically, if you agree with the morality being enforced, you probably don't see it as social enforcement. You think "of course people are doing that, it's just the right thing to do". Which is how woke people feel too. The struggle in the public square between wokism and reaction is scary, but it's the "healthy" way democracy is designed for (even though basically amounts to a daily torrent of complaining). This is how we determine our social morality.
Oh, and if you're one of those "conservatives" who say they believe society doesn't exist or that we can get rid of social morality altogether and just "be free" (if any of you actually believe that, which I doubt):
I don't know... just put yourself in others' shoes more and feel the power imbalances. Either we act on the basis of trust in some generally-agreed upon social morality, or we act on the basis of pure power, which is always ultimately the threat of violence.
The problem is that this kind of "social pressure" has become amplified in magnitude by the internet - to the point where saying the wrong thing is like creating sparks in a room full of fireworks and spilled petrol.
Mob rule - and hair trigger mob rule, to boot. The fact that it doesn't physically tear you limb from limb - but rather removes the ability to earn a living from you, or your ability to pay for things electronically - serves only to disguise its viciousness.
It's a far cry from the days when social pressure meant "having a word about one of the chaps who's been acting boorishly with the other chaps"
So sad that the two sides don't even go to each others' conferences
The biggest question I have for cofnas is even if i take his answer to wokeism, why would it necessarily disempower its oppobents. As you see with some people who take the christian/altruist morality seriously but also empirically believe in hereditarianism(even if not fully applied to race such as Gregory Clark), they are still far from classical liberals and push for more statism/redistribution(including a few socialists).As long as you have the morality based on need instead of merit(which in many cases is argued for by environmental/genetic determinism), the push for wokeism cannot be rejected, it would just be adapted if you succeeded.
With reference to the empirical argument I have my personal qualms but I would prefer to respond in a longer format. Basically there's a big difference between just being able to grasp concepts or abstractions(intelligence), which agree about heritability etc. and actually learning or the acquisition of knowledge(which requires using your free will, most fundamentally the choice to think or not to think). Ultimately when it comes to the differences between countries it generally reflects the degree of political/economic freedom.Which is generally a result of the implicit/explicit philosophy of a country, and is not necessary related to intelligence. In fact it can just result in a more compelling rationalisation for bad ideas, for example naxi Germany, which was caused by the continental philosophers and their rejection of reason(both the philosophers and naxi leaders had high IQs but used it for evil). For a detailed account you can read the cause of Hitler's Germany.
Love it
Very interesting talk. thank you for posting.
Why does he call Christian morality "WEIRD". (I'm not saying it's not, he just didn't explain.)
He also defines the "race taboo" to be hypersensitivity. I don't see how that leads to any actions. Seems rather more likely to lead to inaction (I understand this is Kaufmann's thesis, but I don't think it was explained well enough)
It's an acronym used by some social scientists: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic
Very Interesting.
Who were the discussants? Nathan Cofnas make some excellent points. If wokism were primarily about black/white disparities, it would be a simpler issue. Glenn Loury and others have made the obvious point that the situation of slave-descendent black Americans is unique and exceptional. Woke is about a intersecting coalitions of the oppressed, competing victimhoods, etc. My point may be semantic but I don't see the intellectual coherence in woke. I strong recommend the book by the forensic scholar Norm Finkelstein, "I'll Burn that Bridge When I get to It - Reflections on Identity Politics, Cancel Culture and Academic Freedom". (2023)
Finally, I am not sure what Nathan meant about 'examining sociological issues from a scientific perspective'. I can guess. Sociology is pure BS. Even if conservatives take over, there is no need for this discipline. Quantitative and investigative journalists, philosophers, economists, historians, social workers, etc can cover these topics much better.
North Korea doesn't have much, but they did manage to create nuclear weapons
Congo, nor the rest of Africa, have (except apartheid South Africa)
Is it normal in seminars for the audience to interrupt the lecturer at will without even raising their hand and waiting to be given permission to speak or saving their questions and objections to the end ? what an environment. to have to try and hold oonto the structure of your presentation while you're being badgered to jump around.
Great talk but what about refuting the north korea argument ?
They yelled over him like 20 billion times and asked ten questions in succession for like 15 straight minutes. His argument is that the Congo can never become like South Korea under the right conditions, but under the right conditions North Korea could become like South Korea.
@@rrrrrrktjtj wrong, we have Wakanda as a counter-example ! lool
(thx for the answer)
@yoananda9 got me in the first half ngl. 😅
Garcia Amy Jackson Daniel Lee Susan
First problem. Presenter fails to define "wokism" or "wokeism", despite having a slide titled "What is wokism?" I would also suggest using the spelling "wokeism", in order to distinguish the concept from the belief in the superiority of cuisine cooked in woks.
The assumption that all differences in group outcomes are because of racism/sexism.
He literally said that wokism is what follows when you take the equality thesis seriously. That's his definition of it. Its right there.
@@rrrrrrktjtj Yes, I remember hearing that. That's not a definition. It's an assertion that one thesis ("wokeism") follows from another ("the equality thesis").
@@BlergleslinkVettermoo Wokism is not a thesis, nor did he claim it to be. Its a spiritual belief. It's like "accepting jesus as your lord and saviour is what follows when you take the christian thesis seriously." You are simply trying to paralyze the argument by quibbling over definitions, not a good faith critique imo.
@@rrrrrrktjtj I understand that my approach might come across as fussy, but in areas like political science and philosophy, lots of polysyllabic technical jargon gets thrown around, and the participants often attach different meanings to these words, resulting in confusion. A good way of being clear and avoiding misunderstanding is to define your terms. For example, you say that wokeism is a spiritual belief. Well, then, please state that belief. Is it a belief distinct from the equality thesis? Why didn't the presenter mention this? Is wokeism just a rebranding of the equality thesis? Or is it a set of attitudes and practices that result from taking the equality thesis "seriously"? All of these very legitimate questions could have been answered if the presenter had defined his terms properly in the slide titled "What is wokism?".